When we turn on a Sunday football game, we expect to see just that—great football and great commentary. On Sunday’s night’s NFL game, however, NBC sportscaster, Bob Costas, used his halftime segment to weigh in on gun control. The Internet is abuzz with responses.

The Sportsmen’s Act may have been killed earlier this week, but don’t nail the coffin shut just yet.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., stunned his peers earlier this week when he killed the Sportsmen’s Act with a procedural vote, dealing what could be a knockout blow to a landmark bill that would provide hunters and fishers with over 35 million acres of public land, would channel excise tax funds toward shooting ranges, and would allow the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to sell Federal Duck Stamps online and raise the price from $10 to $25.

Barack Hussein Obama has been re-elected president of the United States after winning nearly every swing state. Despite a rather close overall vote, Obama dominated the Electoral College, winning such key battleground states as Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa. Florida is still counting votes, but he also has the lead there. Obama also appears to have done something many experts said he could not: win the popular vote. At last count he led Republican challenger Mitt Romney by 2 million votes in the nationwide tally.

So, sportsmen, what does this mean for us? First of all, we must recognize that neither chamber of Congress has changed hands. The Senate stays in Democratic control, and the Republicans keep control of the House. Therefore if you’ve been frustrated by the political gridlock gripping Washington, well, you might want to proactively gulp down a couple aspirins. It’s foreseeable that partisan bickering will again stymie energy reforms, the Farm Bill, and other issues of concern to sportsmen.

However, the question people seem to be asking more loudly is what a second Obama term means for the rights of gun owners. After all, it was just a couple weeks ago that Obama expressed support for a new ban on “assault weapons” and hinted at an opposition to “cheap” handguns. Will he introduce legislation? With the House in solidly pro-gun hands, now is perhaps not a good time to introduce it. If the House flips in two years, that could change, but at present the larger concern for gun owners is the makeup of the Supreme Court. Remember, the historic Heller and McDonald decisions were both 5-4 votes–in each case, just one vote preserved Second Amendment rights. Any changes in the court could shift the balance of power, jeopardizing future firearms cases and even leading to the reversals of Heller and McDonald. So, let’s hope any judges Obama appoints during the next four years aren’t in the molds of his first picks: Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Both have histories of vehement opposition to the Second Amendment and seem to prefer it didn’t exist at all.

It will also be interesting to see if Obama’s re-election results in a second “Obama Gun Boom”. Fearing anti-gun legislation, will Americans snatch up firearms and ammunition at the rate they did when Obama was first elected? Based on the comments being left on gun forums and on this website, it’s clear sportsmen are concerned about the future of their rights. Will that translate to strong firearm sales? And will the anticipated gun control that spurred it actually come to fruition? Those are the key questions we can expect to be answered during Obama’s second term.

We find it interesting that most of the swing states are also sportsmen-friendly commonwealths. Here are the latest polling numbers, along with the number of hunters and anglers in each swing state. Will sportsmen decide the next president? According to these numbers, the winning candidate will need at least a sizable chunk of the sportsmen vote to move into the White House.

With just one day to go before the election, we asked our panel of industry experts whether either of the candidates provided them with any new insight into the issues of most importance to sportsmen during the recent debates and whether either Governor Romney or President Obama have said anything that may have influenced, or even changed, who they may wish to vote for. Here’s how several have responded:

Steve Sanetti, President and CEO, National Shooting Sports Foundation

To state the obvious, President Obama’s statement that he favors a reinstatement of the failed so-called “assault weapons ban,” erroneously referring to today’s modern sporting rifles as “weapons of war,” will not improve his standing with many firearms owners.

He followed up with an oblique reference to “cheap handguns” being used on the streets of Chicago, stating that those firearms, not so-called “assault weapons,” were what criminals were using there. Does this telegraph a possible renewed attempt to further restrict those firearms as well? Only time, and the election, will tell.

I am a registered Republican and vote Republican most of the time. However, in 2012, I am voting for President Barak Obama for a second term as President.

I am not voting for anyone who would restrict my ability to own and use guns, or anyone who would gut conservation funding in the name of deficit reduction. I am confident that neither the President nor Governor Romney would restrict gun ownership or use. Even if they tried, Congress would not allow it. However, I am convinced that the Romney/Ryan budget will cause devastating damage to the conservation programs that I and most sportsmen and women support. I have seen the writing on the wall in each of the House Budgets, lead by Congressman Ryan and endorsed by Gov. Romney since HR-1.

Everyone knows that we have to resolve the deficit. I believe that Simpson-Bowles is a sensible approach. Cutting conservation programs and devastating conservation agencies disproportionately will be counterproductive to the 9.4 million jobs that conservation, outdoor recreation and historic preservation generate each year to support the economy of the United States. Selling off public lands is short sighted and is strongly opposed by sportsmen and women across America.

I have been pleased to work with Federal conservation policy leaders like Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsak, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and NOAA Fisheries Service Administrator Eric Schwaab. These leaders have kept their word and have been wise in finding the right compromises between honoring conservation programs and allowing sensible development.

I am not eager to return to the “ideology before reality” policies that we experienced in conservation under former President G. W. Bush. I don’t believe that making rich people richer is the right solution to the deficit. I see this conservation funding crisis as the most serious challenge to conservation since Republican President Theodore Roosevelt created our conservation framework 110 years ago. The next President will guide deficit reduction efforts, along with Congress and the future of conservation is at stake. I think President Obama’s approach is more balanced and sensible….and I think most sportsmen know that.

I am proud to be an American sportsman and I know 60 million sportsmen and women are thinking about their choices as they get ready to vote. The future of our conservation legacy is at stake.

According to a newly released poll by CBS/The New York Times/Quinnipiac University, President Obama has a five-point lead over Republican challenger Mitt Romney in the key battleground state of Ohio. At one time, the same poll gave Obama a six- to 10-point lead in Ohio, but despite gains by Romney, it remains a significant advantage in the waning days of the campaigns.

The good news for Romney is that the poll suggests he’s tightened races in Florida in Virginia. Here’s how Quinnipiac interprets the numbers:

By wide margins, voters in each state say President Obama cares about their needs and problems more than Gov. Romney, but the Republican is seen as a leader by more voters.

On who is better able to fix the economy, 49 percent of Florida voters pick Romney, with 47 percent for Obama; 49 percent of Ohio voters pick Obama, with 48 percent for Romney, and 50 percent of Virginia voters pick Romney, with 46 percent for Obama.

Based on these numbers–and the proud hunting and fishing traditions of Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia and Florida–one has to wonder what impact sportsmen will have on Election Day.

President Obama and Republican Mitt Romney are in the final week of their presidential campaigns and, folks, we’ve got ourselves one heck of a horse race. Many polls are simply too close to determine which candidate has the advantage and, regardless of which candidate you support, you can probably find a poll that says your guy is winning. This is an election that could very well be determined by who, including among sportsmen’s ranks, turns out to vote on Tuesday, November 6. According to many analysts, a strong voter turnout tends to favor President Obama; however, this race is too tight for any concrete predictions. Even after polls close, it could be a day or two before it’s all sorted out and any necessary recounts are taken.

There are likely to be many close battles among the swing states, none of which are more important than Ohio or Wisconsin. General thinking is that whomever wins Ohio’s Electoral College votes will move into the White House. So, what’s the latest? Based on the numbers from Rasmussen, Romney leads in Ohio for the first time (50% to 48%). At one time Obama held a strong lead in Ohio, and more recently the state was deadlocked. However, Romney’s apparent lead is very small–this race remains a toss up.

Based on the current numbers, Ohio appears to be far more essential to the Romney campaign’s election hopes. If Romney loses Ohio, he will not become president–unless he prevails in Wisconsin. In fact, according to a commentary piece by Scott Rasmussen, Florida was the decisive state in the 2000 election; Ohio was the all-important vote in 2004; and in 2012 it could be Wisconsin that’s in the spotlight. Rasmussen writes:

The simplest path without Ohio would be for Romney to win Wisconsin, Colorado and one other swing state. It’s plausible, but an uphill struggle. The latest Rasmussen Reports polling in Wisconsin shows the president up by 2 points. …

… On election night, the first places to watch will be Virginia and Florida [which Romney must win to stand a chance]. If Romney wins there, watch Ohio. If the president wins Ohio, Wisconsin is likely to be the decisive battleground state of Election 2012.

But at this time no analyst can say definitely how this race will play out. The numbers are just that tight, which means the contributions of individual voters are all the more essential. So, get out there and vote for sportsmen’s interests. This year, perhaps more than ever, your vote matters.

In recent days the gun rights issue, particularly in regards to so-called “assault weapons,” has taken center stage. The candidates addressed it directly during the second presidential debate, and gun rights groups have struck while the iron is hot. The National Shooting Sports Foundation reiterated its support for Romney. And the National Rifle Association has stepped up its anti-Obama TV ads, flooding such swing states as Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Wisconsin with them. The ads seek to use Obama’s very words in the debate against him. The NRA’s endorsement of Romney has not been without controversy, given Romney’s past flirtations with gun control. Here’s how NRA responds to such criticism:

]]>http://www.sportsmenvote.com/election-update-romney-takes-first-lead-in-electoral-college-nra-steps-up-ads/feed/5Obama: Solution to Violence is “Seeing if We Can Get an Assault Weapons Ban”http://www.sportsmenvote.com/obama-solution-to-violence-is-seeing-if-we-can-get-an-assault-weapons-ban/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=obama-solution-to-violence-is-seeing-if-we-can-get-an-assault-weapons-ban
http://www.sportsmenvote.com/obama-solution-to-violence-is-seeing-if-we-can-get-an-assault-weapons-ban/#commentsWed, 17 Oct 2012 16:23:17 +0000Kyle Wintersteenhttp://www.sportsmenvote.com/?p=11533

After months of campaigning with little to no discussion on gun control, sportsmen and gun owners were starting to wonder if the presidential candidates would ever be forced into a firearms debate. Then, all of a sudden during last night’s second presidential debate, there it was. Undecided voter Nina Gonzalez (for some reason the Brady Campaign keeps calling her Nina “Rodriguez”, but that’s another story) asked President Obama about what his administration “has done or plans to do to limit the availability of [so-called] assault weapons.” See the 1:15 mark of the video below:

The president’s response is telling.

“We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment,” he said. “We’ve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.”

Okay. So far, so good.

“But there have been too many instances during the course of my presidency, where I’ve had to comfort families who have lost somebody,” the president continued, “Most recently out in Aurora.”

And here we go.

” … Weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets,” the president said. “And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”

The perfect retort for Mitt Romney at this point would’ve been, “You’re right, Mr. President, there’s an awful lot of violence in your hometown of Chicago. In fact it has one of the highest murder rates in the country, but you know what, it also some of America’s strictest gun control laws. Your hometown proves that banning guns doesn’t solve the larger social issues causing violence in our country.”

Unfortunately, although Romney said he would not seek a renewal of the “Assault Weapons” Ban, his answer was far from a homerun in the eyes of some gun owners.

“I’m not in favor of new pieces of legislation on — on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal,” the governor said. “We, of course, don’t want to have automatic weapons, and that’s already illegal in this country to have automatic weapons. What I believe is we have to do, as the president mentioned towards the end of his remarks there, which is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun laws that we have, and to change the culture of violence that we have.”

Romney cited better education opportunities and encouraging children to get married before having kids as ways to bring about social change. He then briefly addressed the Fast and Furious scandal.

“The greatest failure we’ve had with regards to gun violence in some respects is what is known as Fast and Furious. Which was a program under this administration, and how it worked exactly I think we don’t know precisely, where thousands of automatic, and AK-47 type weapons were — were given to people that ultimately gave them to — to drug lords … I’d like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea was behind it, why it led to the violence, thousands of guns going to Mexican drug lords,” he said.

Romney’s remarks were interrupted by President Obama, who interjected, “Candy?” in an attempt to get the attention of event moderator Candy Crowley of CNN. Crowley heeded the president’s request to stop Romney, apparently unaware of the connection between Fast and Furious and semi-automatic rifles.

“Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were once banned and are no longer banned,” Crowley said. “I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in Massachusetts, obviously, with this question, you no longer do support that. Why is that, given the kind of violence that we see sometimes with these mass killings? Why is it that you have changed your mind?”

Perfect. What a great opportunity for Romney to clarify his past position on gun control and explain why his views have evolved. Sadly it appears to the author that this softball question was squandered.

“Well, Candy, actually, in my state, the pro-gun folks and the anti-gun folks came together and put together a piece of legislation,” Romney said. “And it’s referred to as an assault weapon ban, but it had, at the signing of the bill, both the pro-gun and the anti-gun people came together, because it provided opportunities for both that both wanted. There were hunting opportunities, for instance, that haven’t previously been available and so forth, so it was a mutually agreed- upon piece of legislation. That’s what we need more of, Candy. What we have right now in Washington is a place that’s gridlocked.”

So, self-proclaimed pro-gun folks in Massachusetts ignored the interests of semi-auto enthusiasts and instead compromised with anti-gun folks, which Romney cites as an example of the strong bipartisanship America needs. Are gun owners likely to buy that?

Did undecided voters hear anything of substance? Fox News’ panel of “undecided” voters say they were swayed much more by Romney. That’s no surprise, given the network’s right-leaning coverage. However, left-leaning MSNBC’s “undecided” panel was also more impressed by Romney. It will be interesting to see if these reactions play out in the next round of nationwide polling.

As a sportsman, who do you think won the debate and why? And what did you think of the candidates’ exchange on gun control?

Before the first presidential debate, many political analysts predicted that the event was “make or break” for Mitt Romney, who trailed in practically every poll. However, as the president and his challenger prepare to face off tonight in a “town hall” style debate at Hofstra University, it seems it’s now Obama who is in a must-perform situation.

Based on this dramatic shift in momentum, experts say Obama will–and must–change his debate strategy. Reportedly he will come out more aggressive in tone, style and delivery. He will “show life,” as one pundit put it, which would be a stark contrast to his calm, measured style in the first debate. So, perhaps the president will be more assertive, but he has a fine line to tread. His rather tired delivery during the last debate bored many moderates; but a snarky Joe Biden-style delivery may appear unpresidential to some voters.

As an additional challenge, tonight’s “town hall” format doesn’t lend itself well to a candidate who needs to appear energetic. We won’t likely see the feisty back-and-forths that occurred throughout the vice presidential debate, or the fiery “gotchas” we saw in the first presidential debate (at least from Romney). Obama must therefore strategize wisely to ensure his passion for his administration’s platform will shine through. He must convince the critics who asked, “Does this guy even really want the job?” after debate No. 1 that yes, he does want the job, and he is the best man for it.

Otherwise, with so little time left before Election Day and so few undecided voters left, Romney will ride his new-found momentum all the way to the Oval Office.

This was a very different atmosphere from the first presidential debate. Facial expressions, and the way in which the two men engaged, may have had as much to do with how people viewed who won as the substance of the two candidate’s arguments. (To see a replay of the debate go to: http://www.youtube.com/politics?feature=etp-tv-ype-f3b57114a0)

The Vice President took advantage of the split-screen television format to roll his eyes, smile broadly and even chuckle at times during many of Ryan’s remarks. He repeatedly interrupted Ryan, prompting Ryan at one point during a discussion on Medicare to say: “I know you’re under a lot of duress to make up for lost ground, but people would be better served if we don’t keep interrupting each other.” Republicans have cried foul, while democrats have said that this was simply Joe Biden being himself.

In the end, both candidates did what they came to do: Biden, to bolster his party following the first presidential debate and Ryan, to ensure that Republicans did not give up any ground that could slow their recent surge in momentum. Many are calling the Vice Presidential debate a draw, but what was your take?

Take our poll and be sure to leave your thoughts in the poll comments section!

Normally the vice presidential debate has a negligible impact on the election. But, when Paul Ryan and Joe Biden square off tonight at 9 p.m. EST in Danville, Ky., it won’t be under normal circumstances.

The momentum has swung. It’s arguably the first time President Obama–a brilliant campaigner–has appeared frazzled. Conservatives and even independents seem, perhaps for the first time, genuinely excited about candidate Romney. We’ve unexpectedly got ourselves a real horse race of an election, with an interested public, and there’s more pressure on the vice presidential candidates to seize the reins than anyone could’ve predicted.